Kelly's Killer

[lynn cates]

canon

Hello David. Of course MJK is canonical. The canon was fixed by Bond/MacNaughten and ever shall be the same.

And she will be canonical even IF she were found definitely to be by another hand. The "canon" is a meta-concept and has NOTHING to do with who killed whom.

Cheers.
LC

[Limehouse]

Maybe. I mean, clearly I don't know I'm going on instinct mostly. But It's certainly possible that JtR could have had the time with his victims to at least make token forays into the Kelly level of mutilation. So lets say the primary targets of a sexual attack are the obvious places associated with sex, sex organs, breasts and mouth (clearly there are exceptions, but these involve decapitation and dismemberment, so we'll put that aside).

For the victims previous to Kelly, with the exception of Eddowes, the external genitalia was untouched. Eddowes has a long slash that starts at the hip and divides the (right?) external labia from the pubis. But had the external genitalia been targeted, there would be no reason to start at the hip, and one would expect further mutilation. Given the length and depth of the slash, I'm confident that it was a skip. That the knife hit something, skipped over and the force carried it across. So with the previous murders, there is no purposeful mutilation of the most obvious target.

Kelly on the other hand had her external genitalia ravaged. Which doesn't require really anything in terms of time or effort.

When a killer takes a uterus, it can be sexual. It can also be an attack on the organs of generation, like a revenge based hysterectomy or something. If it's a fetish, then that is essentially the motive. Whatever else he gets out killing these women, it's the uterus he's after. But if it's some sort of revenge or mommy thing, then the uterus is still the motive. And he's careful with it. He takes the uterus, takes care to remove it intact, but leaves the vagina which is an odd choice for a sexually charged crime.

Kelly's uterus was removed, but it wasn't taken. If I recall it was under her head. What we don't know is what happened to the vagina. The intimation is that literally everything was taken out. But if the vagina had been attached to the uterus, one would think that would be noted, since that would be new. And no separate mention is made as far as I know, so it may be AWOL. That would be a very significant difference. As is the fact that he left the uterus at the scene.

In the previous murders, their breasts and mouths were untouched. Except Eddowes who had her lips cut when he cut off her nose. But again, it isn't purposeful. Now the breasts are easy to get to, being right there on the chest. And as he had a knife, with a minimal amount of effort he could have exposed them and mutilated them. Or not exposed them and stabbed at them. But evidently they might as well have not existed.

Kelly's breasts were excised, and her lips were cubed.

The facial mutilations of Eddowes and Kelly seem similar, but they really arent. Eddowes was essentially drawn on with a knife. Specific cuts were made that altered her features, and probably completely obscured her face in blood. Kelly's face was obliterated. And a completely different technique was used. She had parts cut off, almost flensed, and everything else came from long crossing slashes. Both mutilations would have taken roughly the same amount of time. If I had to guess, I would say that Eddowes looked like someone Jack didn't want to "watch" while he killed so he disfigures her just enough to obscure the resemblance. Kelly on the other hand I would say was being punished. He took her face, something she would have been proud of, and something that quite possibly was one of the problems.

Kelly is also the only one on whom any attempt at dismemberment was made. Her killer took her heart, which is intensely symbolic, and left her eyes intact, quite purposefully. The facial mutilations would have been easier if allowed her eyes to be cut, but he specifically cut around them. Maybe he wanted her to watch.

The thing is, just because a killer mutilates bodies doesn't necessarily mean he wants to do it more. I mean, it is far easier to cut out the entire contents of the abdomen than root around for one organ. He doesn't do that. He seems to have a system. He has goals he wants to achieve, and his method revolves around that. It's entirely possible that you could leave him with the corpse of a woman for two days and he would never do anything more than essentially what he does on the streets. A guy who wants uteri does not necessarily want to rend women down to their component parts. I mean he might, but there's no rule. If part of his thrill was the possibility of discovery, then the last thing he would want is to be in some safe room.

Anyway, Kelly looks like one of those wives who is finally caught by a crazy and abusive ex. The other victims look like abandoned anatomy projects. It just doesn't strike me as the same.

Hello Errata,

An interesting and thought-provoking post.

I am not convinced the sole motivation was sex. I think there were elements of lust and anger - and perhaps guilt. Perhaps the guilt was expressed by the attack on the sexual regions and organs - a kind of rage against the lust?

I think the only way to describe Mary's killing is to say that it was butchery. I wonder what might have resulted had the killer been able to find a victim with her own room prior to Kelly? Would there have been a similar slaying?

[Limehouse]

With respect to the mutilations alone (setting aside other issues), there is evidence both for and against a sole killer of all the canonicals, I think.



Actually all four of the canonicals whose bodies were mutilated suffered attacks on their genitalia, although these differed in nature. Swanson's internal report of 19 October mentions two stab wounds to Nichols's "private parts," although we have no other information about this, and Llewellyn fails to mention these injuries at the inquest. Swanson also elaborates on Chapman's mutilations, claiming that the "pubes" were removed along with the rest of the lower abdominal wall; again, Phillips modestly refrains from discussing this at the inquest, which could lead to speculation about other mutilations which were glossed over and thus unknown to us today.

In Eddowes, we have the laceration across the labia, along with two other cuts; the dragging slice downward on the right side of the pubic area actually was a continuation of the original vertical incision from the sternum, which the killer pulled all the way to a point behind the anus. Each of the inner thighs were notched with deep incisions, which leads me to believe that these were not accidental, but done with some intent. It is the one detail, along with the facial mutilations, which becomes repeated in the Kelly murder, where the entire vulva, along with a portion of one buttock, is taken away through an incision begun at the inner right thigh (note Bond's lovely Victorian phrase "external organs of generation"). Additionally, the flesh comprising the pubic region is removed in a fashion similar to Chapman, but quite dissimilar to Eddowes (where this was not done). The uterus is removed with a sloppy block cut in Chapman, taking the cul de sac of the vagina (plus much of the bladder) along with it. In Eddowes, the uterus is removed cleanly (at least the fundus). So you could, I suppose, argue that the cut in Chapman is either a sloppy attempt at taking the uterus, but it could equally have been a failed attempt at cutting out the vagina (he only got the upper portion). In Eddowes, the killer also cut out what appears to be the entire decending colon (the sigmoid colon retracting back into the rectal cavity). I don't think, as some others seem to, that this was an accident either, but more likely a deliberate attempt to, in effect, cut Kate's ar*e out from the inside. In Kelly, we don't have specifics about what was done to the uterus and vaginal cavity, as Errata mentioned above.

So people can draw their own conclusions to all of this. I find more simularities between Eddowes and Kelly than I do between Eddowes and Chapman (where asphxyia was also present). I can see Phillip's reluctance to assume that the latter two were killed by the same man. But I also see some details in Kelly that corresspond to each of the earlier murders.

To me, there is something infantile about many mutilation murderers: Kemper, Gein, Nilsen. Here, it seems like a little boy exploring the female anatomy for the first time (except with a knife instead of his hands), until he finally gets up the courage to be alone with the object of his fixations. Of course, this is an observation that tries to explain the progression in the mutilations. It is equally possible that more than one hand was involved, either separately or in tandom (if in tandom, it would explain a few things about the crimes, although the police seemed to have dismissed this possibility at the time).

Finally, one thing which is consistent in all of these murders seems to be the prevalence of oblique incisions. If someone is going to stab or slash at a victim's abdomen, such a angle would usually only be done by accident. In dissection, you cut obliquely; you shelve and reflect tissue, as does the killer repeatedly. This oddity alone would have been enough to have puzzled a man like Phillips, who would have never seen anything like it before in a murder case. I don't mean that it indicated "expertise" of any particular kind; its just plain weird, especially if the object is to inflict mortal injury on the victim of the knife wounds.

An excellent post.

[Hunter]

... I don't mean that it indicated "expertise" of any particular kind; its just plain weird, especially if the object is to inflict mortal injury on the victim of the knife wounds.

Yes, and Phillips stopped short of ascribing 'expertise' and medical skill to the killer. These were the words of the Lancet and the coroner, Baxter. The most Phillips was recorded to have said was 'great anatomical knowledge.'

Another thing the good doctor would have noticed with Chapman was the circumvention of the naval in what amounted to an inverted 'Y' cut; something that was done pathologically in certain explorations of the lower abdomen; as opposed to the standard 'Y', which started below the shoulders, met at the sternum and continued with a cut down to the pubis ( even though the naval was extracted with the organs). There was circumvention of Kate Eddowes' naval also, though it didn't appear as exact; The cutting being mored shelved there.

[Errata]

Finally, one thing which is consistent in all of these murders seems to be the prevalence of oblique incisions. If someone is going to stab or slash at a victim's abdomen, such a angle would usually only be done by accident. In dissection, you cut obliquely; you shelve and reflect tissue, as does the killer repeatedly. This oddity alone would have been enough to have puzzled a man like Phillips, who would have never seen anything like it before in a murder case. I don't mean that it indicated "expertise" of any particular kind; its just plain weird, especially if the object is to inflict mortal injury on the victim of the knife wounds.

I had always seen the injuries to the pubic mound as a necessary consequence of digging around in a small cavity with a knife that was too long. The injuries on Eddowes may be purposeful, but they are also almost exactly what you would see if her killer was not in full control of the knife. Especially if the thigh wounds were higher on the top of the leg and lower on the bottom. Given that she was wearing three layers of buttoned clothing and the abdominal incision is a wreck, I don't think he was in control of his knife. Removing external genitalia takes about three seconds. It doesn't require time or privacy. Inner and outer labia and clitoris are right there if he wanted them. But he didn't until Kelly. Why?

And you can answer this, it's been driving me nuts. Oblique to what plane? Oblique to the vertical plane means cuts that angle from skin to musculature. Wedged cuts, if you will. Oblique to the horizontal plane means diagonal. And if oblique to the vertical plane, is it oblique from the tip of the knife or the blade?

[lynn cates]

sharp eye

Hello Chris.

"There was circumvention of Kate Eddowes' navel also, though it didn't appear as exact"

Thanks for that. You have a sharp eye.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

control

Hello Errata.

"The injuries on Eddowes may be purposeful, but they are also almost exactly what you would see if her killer was not in full control of the knife."

Thanks to you as well.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

I am not convinced the sole motivation was sex. I think there were elements of lust and anger - and perhaps guilt. Perhaps the guilt was expressed by the attack on the sexual regions and organs - a kind of rage against the lust?

I think the only way to describe Mary's killing is to say that it was butchery.

Indeed. And a killer with a modicum of medical knowledge would know that decimating the corpse will destroy any means of determining Time of Death.

Algor Mortis (cooling) was, and still is, a principal method of determing ToD.
This was totally useless on Kelly's remains.

In the 19th century I think the effects of Rigor Mortis were gauged more on temperature than the presence of lactic acid.
Regardless, once again, no reliable data was obtained.

So long as he is not seen, he's scott free....

[Errata]

Indeed. And a killer with a modicum of medical knowledge would know that decimating the corpse will destroy any means of determining Time of Death.

Algor Mortis (cooling) was, and still is, a principal method of determing ToD.
This was totally useless on Kelly's remains.

In the 19th century I think the effects of Rigor Mortis were gauged more on temperature than the presence of lactic acid.
Regardless, once again, no reliable data was obtained.

So long as he is not seen, he's scott free....

That's a helluva lotta work to disguise TOD. And to not a whole lot of purpose.

[Wickerman]

That's a helluva lotta work to disguise TOD. And to not a whole lot of purpose.

I'll bet, 20-30 minutes max. Beats a death sentence.

[Errata]

I'll bet, 20-30 minutes max. Beats a death sentence.

I'd bet on at least an hour. Some of this requires quite a bit of turning flipping and tipping a dead body. Her organs were excised and placed about, some under her head like a pillow. I mean this stuff does not cut like butter. It's easily a three knife job because the blades would dull so quickly, and I'm not sure he had more than one knife. And I don't think a rock solid TOD would have gotten the cops any farther than they got without one. I mean, it really seems like he could go to all this trouble to muddle the evidence, or he could wear a hat. He didn't even need to not be seen. Just not recognized.

[Rya]

Hello Rya. I completely agree. There is evidence both for and against the four who were mutilated. I am glad that you do not include Liz.

Given your remarks on genitalia, I presume you also wish to consider Martha along with the four?

Cheers.
LC

Lots of things to respond here to--I try to limit my reading of this forum to once a day, so my attention doesn't wander too much from the dissertation chapter I'm supposed to be writing now. Like a kitten in a box of toys (or Jack with a fresh cadaver), the attention wanders from object to object, idea to idea.

I suppose Martha suffered stabbing injuries to the genitalia, but I have never seen anything but vague references to this point in discussions of the murder. Killeen (the doctor who performed the autopsy) was typically vague on this point, and I have seen it quoted in various ways. Yes, it could be consistent with the later murders, but there are obviously a lot of other problems with Tabram being a Ripper murder. If it was, then it was a an initial attempt that went totally wrong. For some reason, I've always thought it possible that the murderer of Tabram killed her with her own knife, which he wrestled away from her in the struggle (many prostitutes would have carried such short blades on their person for protection). The final blow with the second, longer weapon would have been done last, as an addendum.

Anyway, we do tend to focus on the differences between the victims today more than their simularities, don't we? Thus Tabram is one murderer, Stride another, Eddowes's killer yet different from Chapman's, and then Kelly's as still another. And lets not forget the "torso" murders, which were going on at the same time. But looking at all these crimes, and considering that they occur in a relatively short span of time in a relatively confined area where there had been no such crimes before, we should also pause to ask how so many killers, if there were so many, could have suddenly materialized from the ether to prey on all these essentially homeless, destitute women all at once. Had something gotten into the water? Dracula's boat arriving in London? While I don't wish to suggest that each of these murders was committed by the same culprit--far from it--I also find that it strains credulity to take the diametrically opposite view.

[Wickerman]

I'd bet on at least an hour.

I wouldn't have thought so long, no more than 30 minutes, but still, if he was not in a hurry, he may have relished what he was doing. Pausing occasionally to appreciate his masterpiece?

Some of this requires quite a bit of turning flipping and tipping a dead body.
Her organs were excised and placed about, some under her head like a pillow. I mean this stuff does not cut like butter. It's easily a three knife job because the blades would dull so quickly, and I'm not sure he had more than one knife.

Agree entirely (except the tipping), the fact such a decimation should take several sharpenings, too noisy, or several knives, requiring a bag, is not typically considered.
The real "Jack" is not allowed to carry a bag, too hollywood'esq for some to stomach. Carrying several knives in your pocket, especially 8" blades, is noisy and particularly dangerous. Not many coats have 12" pockets.

Besides, why would he have several knives, unless he knew exactly what he was going to do. Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes could have been accomplished with one knife.
Unless he always carried a bag full of knives, like one of Baden Powell's scouts. Be Prepared!

And I don't think a rock solid TOD would have gotten the cops any farther than they got without one. I mean, it really seems like he could go to all this trouble to muddle the evidence, or he could wear a hat. He didn't even need to not be seen. Just not recognized.

No, I was just making light....


Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

So people can draw their own conclusions to all of this. I find more simularities between Eddowes and Kelly than I do between Eddowes and Chapman (where asphxyia was also present). I can see Phillip's reluctance to assume that the latter two were killed by the same man. But I also see some details in Kelly that corresspond to each of the earlier murders.

I also see the extraction of the kidney in Eddowes as more consistent with the mutilations on Chapman. The same killer may have "dumbed-down" his next attempt on Eddowes to make it not look so "experienced", yet the "careful" removal of the kidney maybe our clue that the same hand was at work.

Regards, Jon S.

[Rya]

I had always seen the injuries to the pubic mound as a necessary consequence of digging around in a small cavity with a knife that was too long. The injuries on Eddowes may be purposeful, but they are also almost exactly what you would see if her killer was not in full control of the knife. Especially if the thigh wounds were higher on the top of the leg and lower on the bottom. Given that she was wearing three layers of buttoned clothing and the abdominal incision is a wreck, I don't think he was in control of his knife. Removing external genitalia takes about three seconds. It doesn't require time or privacy. Inner and outer labia and clitoris are right there if he wanted them. But he didn't until Kelly. Why?

And you can answer this, it's been driving me nuts. Oblique to what plane? Oblique to the vertical plane means cuts that angle from skin to musculature. Wedged cuts, if you will. Oblique to the horizontal plane means diagonal. And if oblique to the vertical plane, is it oblique from the tip of the knife or the blade?

By oblique, I mean--and I expect this is the meaning when used by a medico like Phillips or Brown--oblique in relation to the surface of the abdomen (or whatever) in terms of the blade of the knife. Exactly how acute an angle to the surface might vary: in a medical dissection, 10 to 30 degrees would be typical to avoid impairing the underlying tissues and organs; in an autopsy, it would be a more subjective comment, which is always a problem. In Eddowes for example, the killer seems to have driven the tip of the knife downward in the inception of the incision (note the perforation of the liver) then turned the blade sideways at a more slanting angle. He had to re-start his incision more than once (as when circumventing the umbilicus), but he always returned to this angle--probably about 35-45 degrees.

Now what is interesting about this is the degree to which it recurs in a haphazard fashion in not only the abdominal mutilations, but in other places as well. Consider the cuts on Kate's thighs. Or even on her cheeks. Here, the killer doesn't need to use the tip of the knife at all; it is rather a peeling motion, with the blade laid virtually flat against the skin. By comparison, and returning to the abdominal cuts, there is this little stunner which I found in the latest edition of the Begg, et al A to Z on Nichols, under the entry for Inspector Spratling (which I would like the original source of): "The flesh, he said, was turned over from left to right, the intestines exposed" (483). I have always wondered why, on medical grounds, the doctors saw a connection between the mutilations of Nichols and Chapman; here it is. What is described here seems to be an oblique incision, made in a criss-cross fashion, across the surface of the stomach area, thus producing a flap that was reflected, exposing the guts of the dead woman. In Chapman, the killer presumably does something similar, although here for convenience he removes the resulting flaps entirely.

Personally, I don't think the killer lacked control of his knife in Eddowes, but you have to take into account the contingencies he was dealing with. If he really cut through the underlying clothing simultaneous with the incision (and there is reason to suggest he did, at least of a large degree), then that alone would cause a loss of efficiency. Then he was also standing or squatting over the body, where leverage would be limited. If he were naturally left-handed, he would have to switch the knife to his right hand given his position, which he could easily have done--I suspect he was capable with either hand--but it might have effected the precision of the cut. Lastly, the place his incision becomes messy is exactly at the point you would predict, where he encountered the denser subcutaneous tissue, fascia and muscles of the middle abdomen. In trying to divide the right rectus muscle (really a whole group of muscles), he had to resort to a protracted "sawing" action with the knife, and this is obvious in the zig-zags we see in the distressing photograph of Kate after the post-mortem.

As far as the genital mutilations go, I have no idea why he did what he did, and he probably didn't either. I suppose (and this is sickening to write about, so I apologize in advance) the obvious way to destroy the area would be to wedge the blade directly into the pudenda and core it out. But the killer's approach in Kelly's murder seemed to be to cut (again obliquely) away the entire genital protuberance across the plane of the inner thighs, from right to left. I suppose there is an erotics to this, which comes from the image of the supine female, legs spread wide with the knees bent, immodestly exposing herself for the male gaze--a conventional pornographic posture (although not necessarily in the Victorian age). In any event, the man or men who killed Eddowes and Kelly was (were) fixated on the inner thighs, and in Eddowes we see what could be an aborted attempt to cut the inner thighs away. In Kelly, this is accomplished along with what looks like a complete evacuation the reproductive organs in the pelvic cavity. The position he left the body in was that eroticized posture I have just described, although without anything left to focus the gaze on.

Why not do this in Eddowes? Hard to say; perhaps the extengencies of time, or maybe because he hadn't thought it out yet. The fact that his victim was sans underpants may have surprised him. Or perhaps it is a matter of age. The earlier victims (and this is assuming the same killer here, which is not a given) may have reminded him of something maternal. He had plenty of time to do whatever he wanted to Chapman, but he did not. He did not scar her face, for example. He rendered her insensible before ending her life. In Eddowes, he may have been enraged by the circumstances of the evening, or by Eddowes herself, who seemed, despite her age, to have retained a girlish, irreverant demeanor. But the much younger, more attractive Kelly was a different matter. He showed her the knife, slashed her throat, and stared into her eyes while she drowned in her own blood, something that would have taken less than a minute but would have seemed to go on forever. She knew who he was when she died. He made her suffer. It was different, in ways that extended beyond the punishment and grotesque exhibition of her corpse afterwards.